The Consensus of Economists

[greatfool66]

You also have to consider that our current minimum wage is almost completely not binding. I don't think many legal citizens work for $5.15 an hour. I heard McDonalds starts at something like 6.50.

If we raise the minimum wage to 7 or 8 dollars or whatever was proposed, then there might be some distortions.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, a group who concentrates on purely economic issues without regard to the social values and impact, who is paid by the corporations for the most part rather than by the workers, has these views. Don't confuse what's good for the corporations is good for society. That's the sort of approach that led us to the great depression.

Looking at it from what's good for society, I disagree with them on all but two - taxing energy to pay for the externalities, and possibly raising the age for social security.

There are quite a few economists that work in the public sector. Generally if you are getting a Ph.D. in Economics you are orienting yourself more towards academia than towards business. You are ill informed on what caused the Great Depression, BTW. It was largely the fault of the Fed and the Gold Standard.

So you support things like sugar and cotton subsidies? You support the tariff on imported ethanol? Things like these severely fvck over the third world. Why should the American tax payer be padding the wallets of so few people?

As for the minimum wage...I will say it is NOT detrimental. The problem is, is that it is not optimal. Only roughly 30% of minimum wage earners are at or below the poverty line. For something that is designed to fight poverty, it sure isn't that effective. The EITC is a much better tool for the job because that is exactly what it is designed for.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: slash196
Greed is not a fundamental human right.

You're obviously not a Republican

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

So you would rather that we all live in poverty just so a few can't be rich? Your sense of perspective seems awfully slanted from reality. Sorry, I was just reading this news this morning from the glorious workers paradise of Cuba about how Fidel's brother, Raul, is to be his successor and I was wondering how that was any different from the medieval absolute monarchies... I suppose it must be, it's not like the Castros are rich or anything...

The problem with socialism is that only utopist morons believe in the fantasy, and they do nothing but serve as useful idiots for the rich and powerful they complain about.

The same is true of Capiltalists.

Oh, how so? Capitalism, in those rare cases where it has been allowed even just partially, has a proven track record of economic success. The same cannot be said of socialism, which has failed every time it has been attempted.

Note my italics. They are intentional.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd answer your last questions, vic, if not for your first. oh well.

Afraid to reveal your hypocrisy?

Sorry I was unclear. You spoke like an ass. Does that clear it up?

Run and hide, little boy, run and hide...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, a group who concentrates on purely economic issues without regard to the social values and impact, who is paid by the corporations for the most part rather than by the workers, has these views. Don't confuse what's good for the corporations is good for society. That's the sort of approach that led us to the great depression.

Looking at it from what's good for society, I disagree with them on all but two - taxing energy to pay for the externalities, and possibly raising the age for social security.

There are quite a few economists that work in the public sector. Generally if you are getting a Ph.D. in Economics you are orienting yourself more towards academia than towards business. You ill informed on what caused the Great Depression, BTW. It was largely the fault of the Fed and the Gold Standard.

So you support things like sugar and cotton subsidies? You support the tariff on imported ethanol? Things like these severely fvck over the third world. Why should the American tax payer be padding the wallets of so few people?

As for the minimum wage...I will say it is NOT detrimental. The problem is, is that it is not optimal. Only roughly 30% of minimum wage earners are at or below the poverty line. For something that is designed to fight poverty, it sure isn't that effective. The EITC is a much better tool for the job because that is exactly what it is designed for.

I agree. IMO the best benefit of the minimum wage is that it provides a protection against hourly wage fraud. That really is its sole purpose. It is not designed to fight poverty, nor is it an effective means of doing so.

Craig seems to neglect the obvious fact that an individual capable of earning a doctorate is going to be relatively successful under any economic system. It's not like they're deadbeats incapable of finishing anything.

Those concerned about the inequality of distribution may want to focus their attention on the inequality of production. The former will only be solved when the latter is (which IMO will be never).

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated.

I find that second statistic interesting. It honestly makes me wonder whether people actually do learn from the past. Back when there was no minimum wage, factory wages could be so low that workers were barely any better than slaves (a lack of labor unions likely contributed to this as well).

There's been more than enough economic evicence that having a minimum wage is detrimental to out society. That's probably where they are coming from.

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning....we might be able to produce more that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that will translate into a better life for the people who are producing those things. ..

that is something that sort of drives me crazy about economists ... they can only think in terms of their graphs and not in terms of the actual effects on the people who have to deal with what it takes to make these things happen..

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated.

I find that second statistic interesting. It honestly makes me wonder whether people actually do learn from the past. Back when there was no minimum wage, factory wages could be so low that workers were barely any better than slaves (a lack of labor unions likely contributed to this as well).

There's been more than enough economic evidence that having a minimum wage is detrimental to out society. That's probably where they are coming from.

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning....we might be able to produce more that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that will translate into a better life for the people who are producing those things. ..

that is something that sort of drives me crazy about economists ... they can only think in terms of their graphs and not in terms of the actual effects on the people who have to deal with what it takes to make these things happen..

Economists try to get overall efficiency. There may be losers but if overall everyone is better off, that is more efficient. For instance, it may hurt some farmers if farm subsidies were killed off but overall everyone will be better off because of the decrease in their taxes. There are also positive effects in third world countries because their products can now compete in our markets where previously they couldn't due to subsidies artificially lowering the price of American crops. Sure it would hurt a few farmers but overall the economy is better off.

The economists that want to get rid of minimum wage may just be wanting to find a better solution. We don't know though because the question wasn't asked.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, a group who concentrates on purely economic issues without regard to the social values and impact, who is paid by the corporations for the most part rather than by the workers, has these views. Don't confuse what's good for the corporations is good for society. That's the sort of approach that led us to the great depression.

Looking at it from what's good for society, I disagree with them on all but two - taxing energy to pay for the externalities, and possibly raising the age for social security.

There are quite a few economists that work in the public sector. Generally if you are getting a Ph.D. in Economics you are orienting yourself more towards academia than towards business.

Relatively few econominists, IMO, work for the 'broad public interest'. Most are paid by some interest.

I think your comment about their not being 'oriented towards business' is wrong and naive.

In fact, they almost seem at times like a fan club for it. Much as you have real soldiers who hate war and armchair soldiers who romanticize it, the economists can be Dr. Strangelove-like ideologues. They are often, usually, far from the 'average citizen' other than those who analyze the financial behavior of the average citizen to learn how to extract from them the way farm experts study cows for maximum milk production. There are, of course, exceptions. Take Paul Krugman, for example.

You ill informed on what caused the Great Depression, BTW. It was largely the fault of the Fed and the Gold Standard.

I don't think I am. To clarify, I'm saying that the laissez-faire policies were well compatible with the great depression happening, and they hardened the blow for the average citizen. That's why FDR built so many radical new programs, using the government to actually protect the average citizens, to stimulate the economy in their interest in many ways. The policies advocated in that poll are closest to those of the bad times in our nation like the gilded age, when most were poor.

So you support things like sugar and cotton subsidies? You support the tariff on imported ethanol? Things like these severely fvck over the third world. Why should the American tax payer be padding the wallets of so few people?

Where did I advocate those things? I have not formed an opinion on those tarriffs; in general, I'm open to some level of protectionism and *planned* globalism.

You have to note the difference between the *corporate* interest in globalism, which is fine with the wild reduction for the average American economically, and the benefits of some globalism which can benefit the nation and the public. We're on a disatrous road now with the wild race to transfer the leadership in wealth, production, research, education, and pretty much everything but military strength to China. We're likely to resemble Russians in being in shell-shocked denial as the changes happen.

They're possibly coming sooner than later, as soon as the race to get off the dollar begins. I suspect some bold investor will make a big move, and benefit from it, causing chaos.

(And the Asians will not feel too much sympathy, remembering the George Soros exploitation of their currencies in the 90's and all the damage it did).

As for the minimum wage...I will say it is NOT detrimental. The problem is, is that it is not optimal. Only roughly 30% of minimum wage earners are at or below the poverty line. For something that is designed to fight poverty, it sure isn't that effective. The EITC is a much better tool for the job because that is exactly what it is designed for.

I'm not going to get into the finer points of the minimum wage versus the EITC here, other than to note that the EITC is unreliable, insofar as, as our nation goes broke, the pressure that we 'can't afford it' and have to cut it will grow enormously, and that it's a funny coincidence that the right-wingers who hate the minimum wage rush to embrace the EITC as the alternative. Hm.

I'm fine with the minimum wage as one of many tools in the war we should be fighting on poverty.

 

[Craig234]

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

Have you completely ignored the last few centuries? Can you show me an instance where socialism has been successful? A maximum wage? You are nuts.

 

[Craig234]

Have you completely ignored the last few centuries? Can you show me an instance where socialism has been successful? A maximum wage? You are nuts.

You are an ideologue, spouting nonsense.

The last few centuries don't show what you think they do.

The closest the US has come to a 'maximum wage' law is in the 1950's with the top income tax rate at 90% - nearly a 'maximum wage' law.

The 1950's, of course are knows for the terrible disasters that struck the US economically as a result of the 'maxomum wage law'.

Oh, no, wait, they were considered some of the glory years of the US economy.

Under your side's leadership, you have put the people who lie to the nation in office and they have done *wonderfully*, the ultra wealthy seeing increases in theri income of several hundred percent while nearly all Americans were flat in real incomes for the last 25 years, and the ultra wealthy skyrocketed their share of the total wealth in the nation. All of the productivity gains - which come largely from people working longer hours - have gone straight into the bank accounts of the few ultra wealthy.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Have you completely ignored the last few centuries? Can you show me an instance where socialism has been successful? A maximum wage? You are nuts.

You are an ideologue, spouting nonsense.

The last few centuries don't show what you think they do.

The closest the US has come to a 'maximum wage' law is in the 1950's with the top income tax rate at 90% - nearly a 'maximum wage' law.

The 1950's, of course are knows for the terrible disasters that struck the US economically as a result of the 'maxomum wage law'.

Oh, no, wait, they were considered some of the glory years of the US economy.

Under your side's leadership, you have put the people who lie to the nation in office and they have done *wonderfully*, the ultra wealthy seeing increases in theri income of several hundred percent while nearly all Americans were flat in real incomes for the last 25 years, and the ultra wealthy skyrocketed their share of the total wealth in the nation. All of the productivity gains - which come largely from people working longer hours - have gone straight into the bank accounts of the few ultra wealthy.

I am not disputing what has happened over the last few years as far as personal income is concerned, mainly because mine has gone up (but only because of hard work and very smart decisions) and I have not researched it nearly enough. I am saying that socialism and a maximum wage is definitely not the answer.

 

[Craig234]

I'm glad you are doing well, but of course base my policy views more on the overall good of society. Your hard work is only one of the factors; billions of people work hard in poverty. There are other things to consider in ensuring the society has a 'fair' economy and opportunity.

A maximum wage is not the same as socialism, any more than families paying for their newborn's needs makes the society communist - it's one small issue. To stay on topic, you asked when a maximum wage has ever been successful, and I pointed out that the closest we've been to one had it working quite well, the opposite of your view.

I'm not actually advocating one, but I am pointing out the fallacy you show in the dire predictions if we had one. We do have an economy out of balance in favor of the most wealthy, and that is leading towards economic feudalism, and a far worse condition than there should be for most Americans.

It's also anti-democratic; the fact is that the ultra wealthy will increasingly be overrepresented in the political system, and the political system itself will have less and less power, so that the 'people's view' has less importance. We're already seeing that in things like the free trade agreements that make government liable to corporations harmed by regulation.

In other words, if the public wants a law banning SUV's, and elects leaders who pass the law, the SUV makers could sue in a secret court unaccountable to the public, appointed by the free trade agreement business authorities, and the government could be bankrupted with the debt to reimburse the SUV makers in effect making them unable to pass the law.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm glad you are doing well, but of course base my policy views more on the overall good of society. Your hard work is only one of the factors; billions of people work hard in poverty. There are other things to consider in ensuring the society has a 'fair' economy and opportunity.

A maximum wage is not the same as socialism, any more than families paying for their newborn's needs makes the society communist - it's one small issue. To stay on topic, you asked when a maximum wage has ever been successful, and I pointed out that the closest we've been to one had it working quite well, the opposite of your view.

I'm not actually advocating one, but I am pointing out the fallacy you show in the dire predictions if we had one. We do have an economy out of balance in favor of the most wealthy, and that is leading towards economic feudalism, and a far worse condition than there should be for most Americans.

It's also anti-democratic; the fact is that the ultra wealthy will increasingly be overrepresented in the political system, and the political system itself will have less and less power, so that the 'people's view' has less importance. We're already seeing that in things like the free trade agreements that make government liable to corporations harmed by regulation.

In other words, if the public wants a law banning SUV's, and elects leaders who pass the law, the SUV makers could sue in a secret court unaccountable to the public, appointed by the free trade agreement business authorities, and the government could be bankrupted with the debt to reimburse the SUV makers in effect making them unable to pass the law.

I do agree with some of your points, but I think that is more a problem of corrupt politicians than a problem with the wealthy. I do not have an answer for these problems (besides deporting the corrupt politicians), but I still think that it is a horrible idea to limit how much money someone can make, legally of course.

 

[Craig234]

JD50, I'm glad to hear we agree on some things. I really don't see almost any problem with 'corrupt politicians' per se. I think that personal enrichment is relatively rare and the far more serious problem is the fact that they need so much money to get elected, that they have to owe too many big donors. That's not so much any one 'villain's' fault, it's a systemic issue.

If we legalized selling organs tomorrow, we'd see a huge industry of the poor selling organs to the wealthy, and there wouldn't be any really 'bad guys'; can you really blame someone who needs a kidney for paying someone else for one?

Similarly, when we set up a system where those who profit from the laws can donate to campaigns, and say that they owe their shareholders loyalty above any societal concerns (which are supposed to be represented by the very political system the donations are corrupting), what is expected to happen?

As for the problem with limiting wealth - the bottom line is that concentrated power is anti-democratic and a threat to society. Whether that's William Randolph Hearst saying he can cause the nation to go to war, or the gilded age robber barons 'owning' government and getting things like corporations given full rights as 'people', it's a problem.

Of course we need to be fair and to incent them with the opportunity for profit. That's a different matter than when the wealth becomes harmful and makes them a threat to society, because their interests rely on the poverty of most Americans.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You ill informed on what caused the Great Depression, BTW. It was largely the fault of the Fed and the Gold Standard.

I don't think I am. To clarify, I'm saying that the laissez-faire policies were well compatible with the great depression happening, and they hardened the blow for the average citizen. That's why FDR built so many radical new programs, using the government to actually protect the average citizens, to stimulate the economy in their interest in many ways. The policies advocated in that poll are closest to those of the bad times in our nation like the gilded age, when most were poor.

You are. Laissez-faire was virtually non-existent at the lead-up to the Great Depression. The Sherman Anti-Trust was well enforced, there was progressive income taxation, and the Fed was firmly in control of the economy. The only thing FDR programs did was have the government borrow money after most private business had lost the confidence to do so.

The 1950's BTW were a period of recession, high inflation, housing shortage, and wide income disparity (edit: meaning it was a typical post-war period). Get your facts straight.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

Have you completely ignored the last few centuries? Can you show me an instance where socialism has been successful? A maximum wage? You are nuts.

you live in a socialist country.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

So you would rather that we all live in poverty just so a few can't be rich? Your sense of perspective seems awfully slanted from reality. Sorry, I was just reading this news this morning from the glorious workers paradise of Cuba about how Fidel's brother, Raul, is to be his successor and I was wondering how that was any different from the medieval absolute monarchies... I suppose it must be, it's not like the Castros are rich or anything...

The problem with socialism is that only utopist morons believe in the fantasy, and they do nothing but serve as useful idiots for the rich and powerful they complain about.

The same is true of Capiltalists.

Oh, how so? Capitalism, in those rare cases where it has been allowed even just partially, has a proven track record of economic success. The same cannot be said of socialism, which has failed every time it has been attempted.

Note my italics. They are intentional.

Capitalism has never been tried the way Socialism(Soviet style) has. Capitalism that has been tried is like Western European Socialism, adopting many facets of the Economic System, but rejecting many other facets. Pure Socialism has been tried, Capitalism has only ever existed in a Mixed Economy.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Relatively few econominists, IMO, work for the 'broad public interest'. Most are paid by some interest.

I think your comment about their not being 'oriented towards business' is wrong and naive.

In fact, they almost seem at times like a fan club for it. Much as you have real soldiers who hate war and armchair soldiers who romanticize it, the economists can be Dr. Strangelove-like ideologues. They are often, usually, far from the 'average citizen' other than those who analyze the financial behavior of the average citizen to learn how to extract from them the way farm experts study cows for maximum milk production. There are, of course, exceptions. Take Paul Krugman, for example.

Can you point me towards a link that shows most economists being extremely business oriented? Most economists that I have heard of are academics. Of course, there are always exceptions.

What's wrong with striving for efficiency if it means the general population is better off?

I don't think I am. To clarify, I'm saying that the laissez-faire policies were well compatible with the great depression happening, and they hardened the blow for the average citizen. That's why FDR built so many radical new programs, using the government to actually protect the average citizens, to stimulate the economy in their interest in many ways. The policies advocated in that poll are closest to those of the bad times in our nation like the gilded age, when most were poor.

The 1920s was not the most laissez-faire capitalist time in our country, I assure you. If the laissez-faire policies of the 1920s were so compatible with a depression then why weren't our even more laissez-faire policies compatible with depression in 1873, 1907, or 1921? In 1921 especially considering policies were similar and monetary contraction was just as deep. So why did we recover shortly after 1921, when from 1929-1932 we were in a depression? Fvck ups from the Fed (not dropping interest rates fast enough and raising them at inappropriate times) caused massive amounts of bank runs which didn't get better until we got off of the Gold Standard.

Where did I advocate those things? I have not formed an opinion on those tarriffs; in general, I'm open to some level of protectionism and *planned* globalism.

You have to note the difference between the *corporate* interest in globalism, which is fine with the wild reduction for the average American economically, and the benefits of some globalism which can benefit the nation and the public. We're on a disatrous road now with the wild race to transfer the leadership in wealth, production, research, education, and pretty much everything but military strength to China. We're likely to resemble Russians in being in shell-shocked denial as the changes happen.

They're possibly coming sooner than later, as soon as the race to get off the dollar begins. I suspect some bold investor will make a big move, and benefit from it, causing chaos.

(And the Asians will not feel too much sympathy, remembering the George Soros exploitation of their currencies in the 90's and all the damage it did).

Initially you said you only supported two things that economists were in agreement with and that didn't include the part about tariffs and subsidies. I apologize for putting words in your mouth. The things is, is that most economists hate tariffs because of ones like the example I cited. Subsidies are pretty much universally hated because there is no reason for them.

I'm not completely sure I understand your second paragraph there. Are you saying we should compete by holding others down? Outsourcing may hurt some jobs here but it helps even more jobs in other countries. Is that bad? Do you not want those other countries to have the opportunity to get ahead? Or do you want the change to be gradual; you know keep millions starving now but eventually we'll allow them jobs.

Do you really think our currency will be royally fvcked in the coming years? The hegemony of the dollar will probably lessen with time but I seriously doubt we will have a currency crisis. One major thing that prevents us from having a currency crisis is the fact that we float our exchange rate against other currencies. If our currency is overvalued, the price devalues. It's a simple mechanism.

That was the problem with East Asia back in 1997, their currency was pegged to ours instead of allowing it to float. You may complain that it was all George Soros' fault but that's bullsh1t. They were borrowing well above their means to pay. Any shock to confidence in the ability of a country to pay that also has a fixed exchange rate can be disastrous. I could easily point to Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, etc. to prove that. Every single one of them had fixed exchange rates at one point in time but they were abandoned because investors doubted their ability to repay the massive loans those countries were taking out.

I'm not going to get into the finer points of the minimum wage versus the EITC here, other than to note that the EITC is unreliable, insofar as, as our nation goes broke, the pressure that we 'can't afford it' and have to cut it will grow enormously, and that it's a funny coincidence that the right-wingers who hate the minimum wage rush to embrace the EITC as the alternative. Hm.

I'm fine with the minimum wage as one of many tools in the war we should be fighting on poverty.

What right-wingers rush to embrace the EITC? I unfortunately see very few people advocate it over the minimum wage. I've really only heard economists advocate it over minimum wage due to increased efficiency of helping the poor. The EITC has proven very reliable so far. For every tax increase so far, there has been a concurrent raise in the EITC. Hell even with the tax cuts there was a raise in the EITC. The current cost of the EITC is roughly $30 billion. That is dwarfed by things like the military budget or other social programs we have. If we're in so much financial trouble that we're cutting money from a $30 billion social program that works out of the over $3 trillion the government spends, well we're all fvcked at that point.

I'm still not understanding why people would support raising the minimum wage when only 12.7% of those getting a raise would be below the poverty line. That doesn't sound like the best policy to me. The adverse effects that go along with a minimum wage raise only go to help 12.7% of the people everyone is trying to help.